humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 27, 5:38 pm, Jim Klein wrote:

> On Mar 27, 5:19 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> > Again, you are arguing against yourself. I agree that your "is really
> > a unit" and "really exists" terminology is senseless.

> "You are arguing only against yourself here, as nobody has
> taken the position that the Sun does not 'really exist'."

> These two sentences leave only 3 consistent possibilities
> that I can see...

I believe the sun really exists, at least I think I do. It's hard to
know because your terminology, "really exists", is close to
incomprehensible.

I think it means "would exist even without consciousness", but in that
case, consciousness does not really exist. That strikes me as kind of
absurd, even for you.

I reject your dichotomy between existing and "really existing".

Please, tell me again what it means for something to "really exist" as
opposed to merely existing. This is your terminology, not mine. I've
argued repeatedly that it's nonsense.

DS